Russell HR Consulting

On Monday Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley, fronted ITV’s new breakfast show.  Daybreak was watched by 1.015 million viewers and attracted a 24.9% audience share from 6am on ITV1 and ITV1 HD, but according to many the initial feedback regarding the ex-One Show presenters, has not been as good as they would probably have wished.  We would have thought that the news about Wayne Rooney would have given them something to get their teeth into on their first day presenting a morning programme rather than their usual evening slot.

However, it is early days yet and as such we should give them the benefit of the doubt whilst they adapt and adjust to the different audience.  As with any person in a new job, whether it be in a new company, or transfer to a new role/department we should set out clearly what we would like them to achieve during their first few days, weeks and months and ensure we give them the training and support they need to become effective and part of the team as soon as possible.

The Telegraph was fairly cutting about the performance of Daybreak’s presenters, saying “Some of Daybreak’s bonhomie felt a little forced, including the constant guffawing of the production team and an excruciating segment in which Chiles bantered through the day’s sports news with the Daybreak sports anchor while both leaned on the latter’s desk like two old soaks propping up the bar at their local pub.”

Sometimes, for whatever reason, things do not always go smoothly and we need to have some difficult discussions and make some hard decisions, if you find yourself in a similar situation regarding an employee’s under-performance give us a call.

If you are having problems with an employee’s work performance or conduct and are concerned about the impact it is having on your business buy the book (How to Get Top Marks in … Managing Poor Work Performance) or call us on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

Recent allegations about Wayne Rooney have been splashed around the tabloids again.   The problem of course in this situation is having a headline-friendly name, which means that inevitably when things go wrong it seems to become a source of never-ending news. 

The allegations by a 21-year-old prostitute that Wayne Rooney saw her several times over a period of months while his wife Colleen was pregnant with their baby finally managed to bump (no pun intended!) the Pakistan fixing story off the top of the sports news headlines.

So just when it looked like he was back on form with his football both for his club, Manchester United and for England against Bulgaria, anxious football fans are asking is ‘is he in the right frame of mind to play for the England team in Switzerland tomorrow.

Jenny Thompson kept up the peculiar tradition of hooker kiss-and-tell stories by simultaneously boasting about her exploits but condemning Mr Rooney.

Ms Thompson told the News of the World: “I think he believes he’s invincible and untouchable.  As a woman, I wouldn’t like that done to me - especially if I was pregnant.” (Why didn’t she think of that before and turn him down you might well ask?)

It seems however that at least one player came out of this affair smelling of roses, as Ms Thompson revealed when describing a time she met Mr Rooney in a nightclub where other United players were present: “Michael Owen was looking at him in disgust.  Wayne made no effort to be discreet and I was embarrassed.” (Puuuur-lease!)

Could these allegations have been the reason for his apparent drop in performance at the World Cup?  Many are now attributing Wayne Rooney’s poor performance in South Africa to his fears over the story going public, highlighting how players’ off-pitch conduct is not just important for living up to their role model status or to please sponsors, but can have a real effect on them doing their jobs too.

If you are having problems with an employees’ work performance or conduct and are concerned about the impact it is having on your business buy the book (How to Get Top Marks in Managing Poor Work Performance) or call us on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

In a case called Nicolson Highlandwear Limited v Nicolson Mr Nicolson was summarily dismissed by his employer on the grounds that he had been defrauding the business through false accounting, running his own business from his employer’s premises and diverting his employer’s customers to his own business.

He successfully claimed unfair dismissal against his employer on the basis that his employer had failed to follow a fair procedure in relation to the dismissal. The Employment Tribunal did not award Mr Nicolson any compensation, judging that the dismissal was wholly attributable to his fraudulent behaviour.

The company sought costs on the basis that Mr Nicolson had acted unreasonably in bringing the claim in the first place.  Somewhat surprisingly, the Tribunal refused to award costs against Mr Nicolson, stating that he had not lied to the Tribunal and that he had legitimately succeeded in showing his dismissal to be unfair, albeit on procedural grounds alone.

On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the Tribunal’s decision and found that Mr Nicolson had acted unreasonably in bringing the claim against his employer, as he knew all along that he had acted dishonestly and that this had caused his dismissal.  The fact that he had been successful with his claim for unfair dismissal did not impact upon the unreasonableness of his actions.

The grounds for awarding costs in the Employment Tribunal and EAT are fairly limited.  Costs will usually only be awarded against an offending party in proceedings which have been conducted unnecessarily, improperly, vexatiously, are misconceived, the subject of unreasonable delay, or where there has been other unreasonable conduct in the manner in which they have been brought or conducted.  If the Nicolson decision is followed, it indicates that a common sense approach will be taken to the issue of costs and that genuinely unreasonable conduct will be punished accordingly.

If you find yourself in such a situation whereby you feel there have been discriminatory acts within your organisation, Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services.  For more information, visit our website at http://www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk/.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas).

We live in a multicultural society … diversity and ethnicity go hand-in-hand with British society. Unfortunately, with a steady increase in the number of immigrants from across the world, the British public aren’t always tolerant of foreign culture.

The government recently completed a review into whether or not there should be a ban on school teachers joining legal organisations that directly or indirectly promote racism. The proposed review has been met with concern by public servants and parliamentary members alike. “To bar teachers, or other members of the school workforce, from joining non-proscribed organisations would be a profound political act” commented Maurice Smith who headed the review (Directgov, 2010).

The review concluded that current measures – such as school equal opportunities policies, the enforcement of equality by the General Teaching Council etc. – are sufficient in providing adequate protection for students against racism and racist members of teaching staff.

This follows on from the report released by the Government this time last year, in which it was concluded that both supporters and members of the British National Party could not be banned from teaching in schools and universities (BBC, 2010).

Whatever their political views, employers are under a duty to obey the law. It is of course unlawful to discriminate on grounds of race and a variety of other protected characteristics; therefore employers must take steps to ensure they offer equality of opportunity from the job advertising and recruitment stage, right through to an employee’s termination of contract.

Equal opportunities monitoring is often used during the recruitment process to ensure that you, and your organisation, are recruiting in a lawful and non-discriminatory way and properly trawling the available market of job seekers to enable all eligible candidates to apply. Although there is no legal obligation to request that your applicant completes a questionnaire which focuses around equal opportunities, it is advised that you do so to enable you to demonstrate that you are truly offering equality of opportunity in your recruitment practices. Failure to adhere to appropriate, non-discriminatory processes could lead to claims of discrimination. It’s worth remembering that there is no upper-limit on compensation in claims of discrimination.

Most organisations set, enforce and regularly review a document of rules and standards known as an ‘equal opportunities policy’. This provides details of the following:

• The law surrounding equal opportunities.
• What constitutes unlawful discrimination, including direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation.
• The responsibilities of managers, heads of units and employers.
• The responsibilities of the employees themselves.
• What is involved in the procedure should a claim be brought forward of discrimination in the workplace.

If you find yourself in such a situation, Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

By Darry Khajehpour and The HR Headmistress

We are pleased to invite you to the launch of the newest book from The HR Headmistress, How to Get Top Marks in … Managing Poor Work Performance by Kate Russell.

The vast majority of employers’ concerns about employees relate to under-performance.  It is critically important to address performance issues, particularly in today’s challenging economic climate, but many managers fear the process.  Kate will be giving a short practical talk on how to manage and turn this around in a few straightforward steps, together with practical examples, tips and tactics.  There’ll be a question and answer session and a chance to network with other guests.  We also invite you to have a cake (suitably un-collapsed!) and cup of tea with us to celebrate the launch of the book.

How to Get Top Marks in … Managing Poor Work Performance guides the employer through the legal framework, discusses the correct way to manage poor work performance and offers practical guidance and HR Headmistress tactics to make the process straightforward, effective and painless.

The event will be held in Milton Keynes at 2pm on Thursday 30th September.  Please let us know if you would like to attend by calling a member of the Russell HR Consulting team on 0845 644 8955.

The book launch is FREE to all who attend.  There will be the chance to purchase a copy of How to Get Top Marks in … Managing Poor Work Performance (RRP £5.00, publication date 30th September) as well as discussing the book with the author.

The book is the first in the new How to Get Top Marks in … series.  For full details of the book – including the opportunity to read the synopsis and an extract online, as well as reader reviews – visit www.thehrheadmistress.co.uk.

If you would like more information about the book or the launch event, send an email to info@russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Thank you and we look forward to seeing you there!

According to the Forbes International Billionaire list, Oprah Winfrey is one of the richest women on earth. With an estimated value of £4.2 billion she’s the richest black person in the world and was once the only black billionaire. While most of the rest of us can’t claim to have such an expansive empire behind us, we do expect to be remunerated appropriately for our duties and, whatever our race or national origins we expect equal treatment at our place of work.

In the UK, the issue of equal pay is treated as a gender discrimination issue. Men and women have the right to be treated equally in terms of salary and employee benefits for like work, work rated as equivalent or work of equal value.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 provides three ways for a claimant to show that he is engaged on “like work”, “work rated as equivalent” under a job evaluation scheme or “work of equal value” as his comparator.

To succeed in a claim for like work, an employee must show he is doing largely the same work as his comparator. A court is unlikely to agree that the claimant is doing like work if there are clear distinctions, for example, different duties, more physical effort or greater responsibility; however, consideration will be given to any extra duties required in a comparator’s job description to decide whether or not they are being done.

To determine whether the work is equivalent, the claimant’s and comparator’s jobs must be rated the same under a job evaluation scheme carried out by the employer. The job evaluation scheme will measure the demands made on the two workers under headings such as effort, skill and decision making. The job evaluation scheme must be objective, analytical and free from discrimination.

Equal value claims are the most difficult to determine. Where there is no job evaluation scheme, the court has to determine whether the claimant’s and the comparator’s jobs are of equal value. The court will usually instruct an independent expert to do an evaluation of the two jobs.

Equal pay has been a political issue for 40 years. Considerable strides have been made, but there’s still some way to go. According to a report published by the Chartered Management Institute the average salary of male managers is £10,071 more than their female equivalents. The 2010 National Management Salary Survey, which reviewed 43,312 employees and managers, found that the remuneration of male staff members was as much as 24% greater than that of female employees at a senior level (Personnel Today, 2010).

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was introduced to offer protection to both women and men against discrimination in society and employment. It is unlawful to discriminate on grounds of sex. This extends to a pregnant woman who does not have to compare her situation to how a man would be treated if she has reasonable grounds to support that ‘but for’ her pregnancy, she would not have been treated less favourably by her employee, constituting sex discrimination. Not only women are affected by this form of discrimination in the workplace.

Recently two solicitors by Eversheds’ property division in Leeds faced redundancy. Mr de Belin and Ms Reinholz were scored against five redundancy criteria. One of the selection criteria, financial performance, included a score for “lock-up”. This measured the time it took them to finish work and receive payment from the client; more points were awarded where there was a quicker turnaround. Eversheds used a reference period of the 12 months to 31 July 2008 to calculate respective lock-up. The maximum score was 2 and Mr de Belin was awarded 0.5. During the chosen reference period, Ms Reinholz was on maternity leave. The company decided to award her a notional score of 2. Overall, Mr de Belin had 27 points and Ms Reinholz had 27.5. Mr de Belin was put at risk of redundancy in September 2008.

Mr de Belin raised issues of unfairness in the lockup scores during the consultation process. He pointed out that if Ms Reinholz had been measured in the period immediately before she went on maternity leave, she would have scored 0.5. Despite raising a grievance and an appeal, Eversheds did not find in his favour and Mr de Belin was dismissed as redundant. He lodged a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. Mr de Belin argued that by artificially inflating Ms Reinholz’s score by 1.5, Eversheds had treated him less favourably because of his sex – put another way, but for her maternity leave, Ms Reinholz would not have scored 2 and she, rather than he, would have been chosen for redundancy.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 says that it is not sex discrimination to give “special treatment” to women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth. One example of “special treatment” in UK law gives a woman on maternity leave priority, in a redundancy situation, in relation to suitable alternative vacancies.

The tribunal found that Mr de Belin had been discriminated against on grounds of his sex and also that he had been unfairly dismissed. The application of the lock-up criteria was unreasonable and also constituted less favourable treatment on grounds of sex.

Although Ms Reinholz was on maternity leave during the lock-up reference period used, Eversheds should have done more to ensure the two employees were fairly treated; for example, by avoiding using lock-up altogether or using a different reference period.

If you find yourself in such a situation, Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

What do David Cameron, Lance Armstrong, Boris Johnson and 60,000 Londoners have in common? They’re all enthusiastic cyclists (though Lance would be just a bit faster than most).

Three weeks ago the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, launched a new cycling scheme, sponsored by Barclays bank.  Almost 60,000 people have signed up as members.  Between them they are making around 15,000 journeys a day. More than 250,000 journeys have been made on new hire bikes in London since the scheme was launched.

More than 34,400 people are daily members at £1 a day, with 21,700 people paying £45 each for annual membership and 3,400 people opting for weekly membership at a cost of £5 for seven days use.

Many employers are echoing Mr Johnson’s call for greener and healthier travel by offering employees the opportunity to participate in the Cycle to Work scheme. HMRC has recently provided some guidance on the tax rules surrounding the scheme.

If an employer lends or hires cycles or cyclists safety equipment to employees, the benefit of this is exemption from tax on employment income if the following conditions are satisfied:

• The cycles or equipment are available generally to all employees of the employer (this does not mean that every employee has to be provided with a bicycle or equipment, just that the offer of cycles or equipment is open to all employees if they wish to take it up); and
• the employees must use the cycle or equipment mainly for qualifying journeys (mainly commuting to and from work). Other use of the cycle, for instance pleasure use or use by members of the employee’s family will not disqualify the exemption provided that the other use is not the main use of the bicycle.

Bikes are often sold to employees at the end of the hire period, which is usually 12 months, for their “fair market value”. This has been taken as being 5% of the original value. HMRC states that the 5% figure is usually significantly less than the actual value of the bike and has issued new guidance to assist in fair valuations.

Now, at the end of the hire period, employers can use the following valuation table to calculate the value of the bike. The changes will apply retrospectively to bikes already on loan as well as to bikes purchased via the scheme in the future.

The aim of the guidance is to simplify the rules and encourage employers to join the scheme. However, there are concerns that it will, in fact, have the opposite effect and make the scheme less attractive as tax benefits will be less.

Employers will be able to depart from the table if a bike is damaged. However, it is for them to explain satisfactorily to HMRC why the valuation should be less than that specified.

Note that following the recent decision in Astra Zeneca v HMRC in which the Court ruled that Child Care vouchers were subject to output VAT as they constituted a supply of services effected for consideration, it may be that other salary sacrifice schemes (such as Cycle to Work) may also be taxable for the same reasons.

If you would like to find out more about how various salary sacrifice scheme changes are being revised in government policy, Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

Shopping queens like Victoria Beckham and Paris Hilton may not be affected, but those employees who receive retail vouchers in their remuneration packages may find that the benefit is under review following a recent court decision from the European Court, the CJEC.

The court recently found that a company which offers its employees retail vouchers as part of their remuneration will have to pay VAT in respect of the vouchers. 

In addition to salary, Astra Zeneca offers its employees a range of benefits, which employees can select from a list. Each benefit gives rise to a deduction from the normal salary. As part of this the company offers its employees retail vouchers to be used in certain retail outlets, worth £10 each in the shops. This benefits the employees as the deduction from salary for each £10 voucher is less than that amount (between £9.25 and £9.55 is deducted).
 
Astra Zeneca claimed reimbursement from HMRC of the VAT incurred when it bought the retail vouchers, but the claim was rejected. HMRC argued that Astra Zeneca had to pay VAT in respect of retail vouchers it purchased if and when they were supplied to its employees as part of their remuneration packages (the employees are not taxable persons for the purpose of VAT).

Astra Zeneca appealed against the decision to the VAT and Duties Tribunal at Manchester, which referred questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling. The key question was whether European Law must be interpreted to mean that the provision of a retail voucher by a company to its employees as part of their remuneration constitutes a supply of services affected for consideration.

Agreeing with HMRC the CJEC said agreed and ruled that Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of a retail voucher by a company, which acquired that voucher at a price including value added tax, to its employees in exchange for their giving up part of their cash remuneration constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration within the meaning of that provision.

If you have any issues regarding remuneration of employees in your organisation, Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

According to the sporting press, Tiger Woods has become a ‘national joke’ in US over his poor performance after his final round at the Bridgestone Invitational.  And the former champion also failed to win an historic third successive Open title.

Although he is the world’s top golfer, Tiger Woods has not won any of the three majors he has played since he returned from his break from the sport following revelations about his extra-marital affairs.  Earlier this year he made a public apology after a series of revelations disclosed that he had had affairs.

He has not found his form since (there’s a bad joke in there) and concerns that his marital problems are affecting his performance grew after he blamed his poor form on putting.  Yesterday Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren announced their divorce in a statement on the world number one’s official website.

For many people, a divorce or separation can be the most stressful experience of their lives. Stress can severely affect a person’s motivation and ability to concentrate, which in turn will affect that person’s performance at work.

If you have an employee who you feel is being affected by a divorce or separation and who is underperforming at work; consider whether it would be appropriate to offer them any extra support such as counselling. Ultimately, you are able deal with unacceptable performance though performance management and capability procedures, but there may be a simple solution to resolve the problem. By talking to an employee and providing the necessary support and encouragement, you may be able to address any difficulties quickly and effectively, without the need for formal action.

For more information and practical help, pre-order my new book ‘How to Get Top Marks in … Managing Poor Work Performance’ at www.thehrheadmistress.co.uk. This the first in a new series of practical, pocket-sized employment law books from Russell HR Consulting, publication date 30th September 2010.

Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

The last few days have seen several news items dealing with poor performance at work.  The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has announced that the Audit Commission, which acts as a spending watchdog, will be abolished.  This move is expected to save £50m a year.  On the Today programme this morning, its chairman Michael O’Higgins rejected claims by the government that he has overseen a regime of extravagance.  Amongst other things, £4,000 of bagels were discussed.  I can’t comment on that but I do know that Audit Commission employees used to travel by first class rail and I always raised an eyebrow or two over that.  Having spent all my employed working life in the private sector, I am well used to travelling by the most cost-effective route.

Last week The Guardian reported that a study carried out by Knox D’Arcy shows that 68% of working time of junior council staff is not spent productively, usually as the result of poor supervision.  The study, which included the shadowing of managers in the private and local government sectors, disclosed that the level of active management of staff averaged around 3% a day, (15 minutes).  According to the research, staff utilisation rates in the public sector are 32%, and 44% in the private sector.

Managing poor work performance is seen as a challenge for many managers, but ignoring it is the worst thing you can do.  The essence of being a manager is getting work done effectively through your team - it can be a tough job!  Many managers fear confrontation.  In the short term it might be easier to ‘work round’ a poor performer, but quite quickly, other employees get fed up with carrying a colleague and grumble about covering for him.  They might leave, you could end up doing the work yourself, or it may be that the work just doesn’t get done.  Either way, it’s a costly and unsatisfactory outcome.

Unfortunately, the problem doesn’t usually go away by itself.  In my book How to Get Top Marks in … Managing Poor Work Performance I refer to the extreme case of Gerry, an employee who had been with his company for some time.  Gerry was unable to properly carry out his duties and was causing serious production problems.  The employer (my client) wanted to sack him.  In expressing his considerable frustration he said “He’s always been like this; slow to learn and the only thing he does quickly is to lose the skills he does manage to gain.”  I asked how long Gerry had been working there, expecting the employer to say something like, “About six months.”  I was amazed when the reply was “15 years – and he’s always been ******* useless…!”

Don’t be an ostrich.  Tackling poor work performance doesn’t need to be difficult or time consuming.  If you need help, give us call.

If you find yourself in such a situation, Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).